KONA NARSINGHRAO Vs. AKHTAR ABDUL HAMID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal has been admitted on following substantial question of law.

(2.) The appellant - plaintiff filed a suit for possession and damages. Briefly stated, the case of the appellant was that the father of respondent - defendant was running a business of repairing 2/3 wheelers in the suit premises under the agreement of agency. The respondent's father agreed to pay Rs.1500.00 per month towards the agency charges. Respondent's father expired two years prior to filing suit. The respondent continued the business but without any authority and, therefore, his possession over the suit property was unauthorized. The respondent through written statement, though, did not dispute ownership of the appellant, set up a defence of existence of a tenancy. According to the respondent, there was no relationship of principal and agent between the appellant and respondent's father and the agreement to that effect filed by the appellant was a forged document. The respondent averred that in the year 1997, he approached the appellant to let out the premises at a monthly rent of Rs.250.00 for running a business of auto work. Thus a relationship of landlord and tenant was pleaded in the written statement.

(3.) Both the Courts below held that the appellant failed to prove that there was relationship of principal and agent between the appellant and respondent's father. On the point of decree for possession, the trial Court held that since the respondent has not disputed the ownership and since he failed to establish relationship of landlord and tenant, the appellant is entitled to recover possession of the suit premises.